Hudson Companies has closed on a development site at 626 Flatbush Avenue in the Prospect Lefferts Gardens section of Brooklyn, where the developer plans to build a 23-story, 254-unit rental building one block east of Prospect Park, The Commercial Observer has learned.

(Credit: Flickriver, wallyg)

Ariel Property Advisors arranged the $11 million sale of the development site, which the buyer entered into contract on last year, and brokers who arranged the sale are calling it a “game changer” for the neighborhood.

“Prospect Lefferts Gardens is one of the lesser-developed areas that has the most potential because there is a subway is right there, the architecture is beautiful, and access to the park is easy,” Jonathan Berman of Ariel Property Advisors, who exclusively represented the buyer and seller with Shimon Shkury, Michael Tortorici, and Victor Sozio, told The Commercial Observer.

The property features 100 feet of frontage on Flatbush Avenue and a roughly 52,265-square-foot rear parking lot. It is located near the Prospect Park Zoo, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, and two blocks from the B, Q and S subway lines. Hudson Companies has agreed to set aside 20 percent of the units for affordable housing.

“There are so many things going in this neighborhood that the time is right for development,” Mr. Berman said. “Prices in the area for development sites are going up and larger developments are being picked up by developers.”

The deal had to overcome several major hurdles before closing, including resolving an easement issue and relocating several commercial tenants, one of which has already moved, and two others that will relocate in the coming weeks.

In response to demand in underdeveloped areas of Brooklyn, Ariel Property Advisors is expanding its Brooklyn operation and has added additional brokers to its sales team.

“Exciting things are happening in Brooklyn, as rental and condo values are quickly catching up with Manhattan,” said Shimon Shkury, president of the firm, in a statement".

Even if we assume that 20% (51) of the units meet whatever definition of affordable they end up with (80% AMI?), these folks will be carefully screened.

Hence, we are looking at 203 (254 * .8) new, nicely appointed units that will likely house people who presently live above area's median income. The local businesses will respond by changing their products and services.

...and some units on lower floors, with less nice finishes for those who were lucky enough to win a lottery. These folks will influence the businesses to a lesser degree.

I know nothing about his "Equality for Flatbush" organization, but the stated goals of the Prospect Park East Network, which organized the pictured press conference, are to modify this project, rather than to stop development. I was there and I'm absolutely certain about this.

Nevertheless, IF this building gets built to the full planned height it will strengthen the push for contextual zoning, similar to what already exists in the neighborhoods on all other sides of Prospect Park, which will prevent other towers like this one.

Tivoli Towers is much to far away [about 3/4 mile] to "blend" with this building. In any case, contextual zoning for PLG wouldn't reduce population density, since it would allow shorter buildings with a larger base. Allowable FAR would be about the same

Whenever a new tall building is built on a busy strip of low rise buildings, it could be considered "out of context".

Some like the new buildings, others don't.

In part, we have regulations and laws so developers don't have to comply with the whims of the public.

If HFA broke one of those regulations, I wish those who wish to "modify" this project luck. If they merely wish to try to spot zone this parcel to suit their whim of a quaint neighborhood of people they believe to be like themselves, I hope the experience is very expensive, tedious, time consuming and results in defeat.

I should add that while many of my neighbors are adamantly opposed to a building this high and I do agree that it would be desirable for the height to be reduced, I am personally much more concerned with contextual zoning, as a long-term issue.

True, but the buildings on 4th Avenue and [with the sad exception of the Richard Meier monstrosity] Eastern Parkway aren't visible from Prospect Park. Also, unlike 4th Avenue, most tall buildings on Eastern Parkway were built a generation or two before there was much concern with architectural context.

The pending law suit, which deals with the lack of a proper EIS, and the campaign for contextual zoning address different issues. To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested landmarking Flatbush Avenue, even though the Prospect-Lefferts Gardens Historic District is across the street from this proposed building, the Ocean on the Park Historic District and Prospect Park are across the subway cut, to the rear and, to the north, Chester Court will very likely be eventually designated as either an extension to the existing PLG HD, or a separate district.

...as you are aware, being near a historic district is not the same as being IN one.

Also, while historic districts are popular, they certainly are not without costs. We can (and should) only pay for so many.

You are correct, the EIS is a different issue. The HFA didn't "forget" to create one, they didn't create one for a reason: They didn't perceive any impact from this project that warranted one.

As stated above, I'd be surprised if the judge disagreed with the HFA.

The judge will likely conclude that the zoning code effectively addresses the concerns of "the community", and that there are very good reasons that changing the zoning code is time consuming, tedious and arduous.

The tower is as-of-right, so there's nothing the Borough President can do. They can appeal to the Pope or Obama while they're at it.

And that rendering is obviously massively exaggerated. The building will look nothing like that from the park.

Then they top off the idiocy by calling for 80-foot height limits on major Brooklyn thoroughfares (basically 7 floors), and then simultaneously complain about high prices and rising rents. Well, gee, I'm sure calling for no new development will really drop those home prices..."

Then they top off the idiocy by calling for 80-foot height limits on major Brooklyn thoroughfares (basically 7 floors), and then simultaneously complain about high prices and rising rents. Well, gee, I'm sure calling for no new development will really drop those home prices..."

It's not about calling for no "new" development. People are complaining about the scale of the development. no? There's a difference.

For simplicity, we could call one side the "as of right builders" and the other side "contextualists".

It seems the "As Of Right Builders" are proceeding as the law allows, while the "Contextualists" want people to respond to their emotion; They want the process to be subjective and based on democracy (populism?).

Here's the thing, the two sides are never going to get along. That's why these discussions are held in anticipation of future development, and result in zoning.

....this is sharp contrast to discussions that occur in response to planned development. We are presently witnessing the latter.

Even though he won't be able to stop this development, Eric Adam's can't lose by showing up at this event.

I do love grandstanding.

I attended this event tonight. I won't attempt to sum up the entire meeting (as I expect the Q at Parkside to do that more eloquently soon). I will say that it was very well-attended (standing room only). There were a people from a variety of racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds there, and it seems that many of them feel threatened on some level by the upcoming developments.

There was some level of grandstanding, but part of the political process would be to allow people to speak out.

The politicians were very honest that there really isn't much that can be done about this particular development. The best course of action seems to push forward with rezoning (downzoning) to prevent something like that from happening in the future.

Note that the Prospect Park East Network the organizers of this meeting [along with PLGNA, LMA, and FDC] are looking for contextual zoning, NOT downzoning. This would limit the height, but not the density of new buildings. They could achieve the same volume by covering a larger portion of the lot, something possible, but not required under present zoning. All they're asking for is zoning similar to what currently exists on the other sides of Prospect Park,

I suspect they will not do so, unless they think the law suit is likely to succeed. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the larger issue of contextual zoning than about this one project, although many of my neighbors would disagree.

Zoning changes will take a long time. While that process is ongoing I agree with whynot and wonder what the idea of "contextual" will take on. The R7 zoned areas include this new project, Tivoli Towers and Ebbets field. Why would a similar development to those be considered out of context? BTW, i heard the spice factory recently changed hands and if development happens there (along with Seacrest) then single family homes will be out of context.

If PPEN is not opposed to density then is the goal of PPEN to simply reduce the height of new buildings around the park?

According to the flyer above, PPEN seems to be concerned about the building height not only because it could scene from the park, but also because it will be filled with luxury tenants who will cause a ripple effect of increasing costs.

Other flyers want 30% of the units to be "affordable", which basically kills the projects profitability (aka viability) given the current level of support available from the state and city for such purposes.

Zoning changes will take a long time. While that process is ongoing I agree with whynot and wonder what the idea of "contextual" will take on. The R7 zoned areas include this new project, Tivoli Towers and Ebbets field. Why would a similar development to those be considered out of context? BTW, i heard the spice factory recently changed hands and if development happens there (along with Seacrest) then single family homes will be out of context.

If PPEN is not opposed to density then is the goal of PPEN to simply reduce the height of new buildings around the park?

According to the woman who made the presentation at last night's town hall, there was a request to change the zoning placed in 2008. The city allegedly hasn't gotten around to it yet. Now people want some action to be taken on this request so that future developments like 626 Flatbuish are curtailed.

Ebbets Field is not as close to Prospect Park as the 626 Flatbush site, and neither is Tivoli Towers. By the way, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG) is in between Prospect Park and both of those two high rise developments.

Tivoli Towers is one block away from BBG (between Franklin and Washington Avenues). The grounds for Ebbets Field are located 1.5 blocks east of Franklin. Patio Gardens seems to be more fitting in terms of an example of something that is "out of scale" in that immediate area.

According to the flyer above, PPEN seems to be concerned about the building height not only because it could scene from the park, but also because it will be filled with luxury tenants who will cause a ripple effect of increasing costs.

Other flyers want 30% of the units to be "affordable", which basically kills the projects profitability (aka viability) given the current level of support available from the state and city for such purposes.

Why should property owners bear the brunt of social goals?

Here's another question: The property was zone that way for years; why are people paying attention now and starting to develop in this manner now?

The developers of 626 Flatbush have accepted some government funding to have the project constructed. Don't expect citizens not to want to have some say. It would be different if the funding were entirely from private sources, no?

Answer to question 1: Developers are developing now because the numbers now work.

Answer to question 2: The developers have met the established mandates of the public funding sources; They do not have to also meet the arbitrary demands of the public. They are building this "as of right".

Here's the zoning for the area above Empire ....which seems to only load upside down

According to the woman who made the presentation at last night's town hall, there was a request to change the zoning placed in 2008. The city allegedly hasn't gotten around to it yet. Now people want some action to be taken on this request so that future developments like 626 Flatbuish are curtailed.

Ebbets Field is not as close to Prospect Park as the 626 Flatbush site, and neither is Tivoli Towers. By the way, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG) is in between Prospect Park and both of those two high rise developments.

Tivoli Towers is one block away from BBG (between Franklin and Washington Avenues). The grounds for Ebbets Field are located 1.5 blocks east of Franklin. Patio Gardens seems to be more fitting in terms of an example of something that is "out of scale" in that immediate area.

Tivoli Towers is as close to the BBG as this new development is to the park. Ebbetts field is close enough to be included when evaluating what "contextual" means (IMO). I still think the major beef here is with it's proximity to the park. For example, if this development were on Empire east of Bedford, would it be getting so much attention? I doubt it....

Tivoli Towers is as close to the BBG as this new development is to the park.

I disagree. 626 Flatbush is 0.5 blocks from the park. If you were to exit on Lincoln Road, you can see the park down the street. Tivoli Towers is one block away, but BBG is in the middle.

Ebbetts field is close enough to be included when evaluating what "contextual" means (IMO). I still think the major beef here is with it's proximity to the park. For example, if this development were on Empire east of Bedford, would it be getting so much attention? I doubt it....

Re: Mitchell Lama. Yes, if the right incentives to build affordable housing are provided, it will be built. At the time, Mitchell Lama paid more than market rate housing. ....comparitively few such programs exist today.

Re: Contextual. Give it time. Once this and the other developments in the works are built, the context will be large apartment buildings. They have been permitted for decades, but are now again profitable to build.

It might be a little long winded, but there is so many things wrong with this building

it is amazing that it has gone as it has!

One of most basic issues is to keep affordable neighborhoods affordable. Once you start letting in Luxury housing, this will have a drastic affect upon the existing housing stock, by forcing prices to go up. We are demanding an investigation as to how our tax payer’s money is being spent to remove us from our neighborhood.We are also concern about the visual ascetics to the park, with the tall building creating shadows within the park if these buildings are allow to rise.

A few facts

a. Hudson Co received a 72 million bond from the State to build this building without conducting a mandatory environmental review on such projects as required by SEQRA.

b. Hudson Co on their application to receive money from the State, stated there was no community opposition to this planned building.

c. The building will be 50% taller than any other existing structure surrounding the park, thus you will be able to see it from almost any vantage point in the park!

d. This building will be ten times taller than the existing structures surrounding it.

e. This building has almost 100% financing from public funds, and there was 0% community involvement.

f. 80% of the units are luxury units with the starting rents for a studio at around $1900.

g. 20% of the units are “moderate or affordable” based upon an average income of around $84,000, where as the Flatbush, Leffarts Garden community has a medium income of around $40,000. Thus the affordable or moderate rates are not affordable or moderate to the people in this community!

h. The luxury units will be 30% to 40% higher than existing market rents, causing a widespread increase in the rental market and the displacement of an entire community.

i. The harassment and displacement of tenants has already begun in this community, as evident by a lawsuit filed by the Flatbush Tenant Coalition on April 15, 2014, for discrimination with the aim of displacing tenants.

j. Flatbush, Lefferts Gardens is the densest populated area in Brooklyn, so why do we need more people?

k. Flatbush already has an issue with traffic jams, idle cars along Flatbush Ave, to put another 300 to 400 cars in that same area is going to cause serious health related issues for the residents, such as asthma and other lung related diseases. This is why an Environmental study should have been done to avoid negative environmental factors to the community.

l. An Article 78 lawsuit (to put a temporary stop on an activity) by PPEN (a local community group) was entered into Manhattan Supreme Courts in Dec. 2013 and is still pending! The normal time of completion of this type of lawsuit is 90 days and it is now 120 days and still no decision.

m. The documents in the court have stated the foundation of this building will be laid by June of 2014 and once that is done, there is no way of stopping this building from being built.

n. Twice since 2008, community Board 9 requested rezoning to protect our community and City Planning rejected these requests, by stating it was too busy.

We are demonstrating at Prospect Park West Between Union and President St. on Saturday, May 24 from 10-2pm.

It is one thing to argue that HFA did not follow its internal procedures and conduct an environmental impact statement. In that instance, one sues HFA.

In this case, the plaintiffs seem to be arguing that Hudson can't proceed because an advisory board (aka Community Board) didn't like the project, and Hudson stated to HFA that there was no significant community objection.

There is always significant community objection to projects.... The entire industry states that there is "none", because the requirement contradicts "as of right".

Only the most naive opponents believe the first. The last two are quite true; the failure of HFA to follow proper procedures is the basis for the present suite; achieving contextual zoning is a separate long-term goal and (potential) solution.

DCP seems to have provided a preview of the De Blasio adminsitration's approach to rezoning "our" borough: The East New York recommendations include expansion of manufacturing uses and residential density along major transit corridors. Side streets would receive contextual infill.

The judge overseeing the case against the Hudson Companies’ development of a 23-story mixed-use building at 626 Flatbush Avenue in Prospect Lefferts Gardens has lifted the temporary restraining order, saying the plaintiffs “have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits” of the case. The case is still ongoing, but a lengthy written decision said the environmental review that was already conducted was adequate.

Developers have been using similar tools for years. The problem has not been that they didn't know where the lots were, but that the economics of constructing such buildings didn't previously make sense.